First, since this was a leader article, and thus an expression of opinion, there is no reason why it should be unbiased.

Second, I note that the people offended by its tone, do not appear greatly exercised by its arguments; and, when they are they tend to be factually wrong - the oil/gas pipeline infrastructure in Russia is state owned and the election of President Medvedev was manipulated in such a way that the term 'rigged' is not inappropriate (not withstanding the undoubted fact that he would have won in a fairly managed context).

Third, it is true that Russians enjoy more freedom now than at any point in their history especially in their personal lives and thanks to some reforms and high energy prices (until recently) a growing standard of living. But this has not, sadly, fed through (as yet) into either a better quality of life (the demography is still appalling) or a more decent, rights respecting public sphere. Nor has it allowed Russia to feel at ease with itself, imagining the West is out to get it, rather than, as is the case, wanting it to relax, become a part of it, and go shopping (just like us)!

Fourth, it is downright weird that climate change deniers can bring their curious obsession into the discussion of almost anything!

Wow, probably one of the poorest economist articles in a while. I know the economist is generally biased towards Russia but this is over the top.

1. The invasion of Georgia: Russia never invaded Georgia, the war was started by Georgia, Russia was retaliating. That's not an invasion.

2. Turning of Gas pipelines? No, one turns of gas pipelines on a whim, you turn of a gas pipeline when your customer doesn't pay. If you stopped paying your bills your phone company would turn of your phones - same logic.

3. The latest textbooks are soft on Stalin. That is nonsense! Today's Russia does not idealize communism of communist leaders. There is still a part of the population that votes communist, mainly the older part. In reality support for communism or communist ideals is low.

4. "Putin installed Medvedev": Not true! Putin endorsed Medvedev, just like people endorse political leaders all over the world. The fact is that Putin's endorsement won the election is not disputed but to say that someone was installed implies that elections were rigged, which is not the case - even though the economist seems to think so.

It is deeply saddening that a publication like the economist, that is widely read and highly respected allows itself to be so biased and degrading. If it truly wanted to promote the virtues of democracy and capitalism it could achieve a lot more by providing articles that are well researched and unbiased - that would provide ideas for improvement rather than simple defamation.

lithy44,
far from being vitriolic, in my comment to the article I refer to the fact that when reporting anything related to Russia the Economist takes a rather one-sided view reminiscent of the cold war years. I maintain that this particular leader is biased and substitutes analysis for often incorrect claims.

And indeed, in my post I talk about one such claim - that about the "last year’s invasion of Georgia", which had been proved wrong by the results of an investigation conducted by an independent EU commission. Headed by Heidi Tagliavini, the commission has found that the Georgian president not only started the war, but also mislead the international community about the movements of his troops (which were positioned on the border to South Ossetia before the attack while he was proclaiming a ceasefire, whereas the Russian tanks arrived only a day after the Georgian bombing began).

Another example of misrepresentation of Russia in the article is the suggestion that it simply turns off the oil taps whenever it suits it. First of all, it is not the state that runs the oil pipelines. Gazprom, like any other company in the world, has the right to insist that the terms of its contracts be observed by the business partners. Ukrainian side violated the terms by, essentially, stealing the oil Gazprom sends through its pipes to Europe. Moreover, it has been doing so for years as, due to mismanagement of own finances, it was unable to pay even the heavily discounted price offered to it by Gazprom. And, it was doing so knowing that it can take half of the EU hostage if the Russians try to enforce the terms. The gamble that Gazprom won't dare touch it in fear of scaring away its European customers backfired. Gazprom did not break any contracts and was simply defending its business interests. So blaming it for wanting to get paid for the oil it supplies and portraying the Ukraine as a victim of the evil plans of Kremlin is in this case plain wrong.

That said, I see a couple of other stumbling blocks on the way to world peace and prosperity than Russia and China. Just take US and EU with their subsidy policies that keep half the world hungry...

Just wanted to through my two cents - this article is the prime example why I stopped subscribing to the Economist magazine. For the pretense of a (relatively) serious magazine about international politics and economy all Economists' coverage of Russian issues is complete unabashed drivel. This is George W Bush level of political analysis.

I have not seen a bigger misrepresentation of facts anywhere! Russia turning off the gas taps for Europe?! Invading Georgia?! The taps were not turned off to harm Europe, but rather to ensure that Ukraine pays for the gas it uses. Is it Russia's fault that the SOVIET-BUILT pipeline to Europe goes through Ukraine (a former SOVIET republic)? And that the Ukrainian goverment in the beginning 90's made it UNLAWFUL to privatize "strategic" public assets, and declared the gas pipeline one of them? From what I know, Gasprom tried to lease the Ukrainian part of the pipeline or buy it from Ukraine, but of course Ukr refused. And now this sabotage is possible. I just don't understand why this has such a negative reaction from the West. Consider a parallel: What does the U.S. IRS do when someone doesn't pay his/her taxes? They freeze his/her bank account. Russia froze Ukraine's gas supplies for non-payment. I don't see anything wrong with that. On the contrary, it seems that Ukrainian gov't should work something out (i.e. start paying on time) so that the population is not left to freeze in the middle of January!

lithy44 wrote: "The apologists for Russia's polity blame everyone except Russia itself for its problems.... they seem to see Russia only through very rose-tinted glasses. Just like during the days of the former Communist system, the most vociferous (and totally myopic) screeds usually came from the apologists for Mother Russia..."

Right on target ! But their glasses are not just rose-tinted, they are bright RED, BLUE and WHITE, - the Imperial tricolor. The real question is their compensation paid in Russian rubels or in vouchers valid only in Russian cassinos ?

These kind of articles keep me from subscribing to the Economist. It seems that once in a while the economist has to run a lead article that bashes China,Russia and France. I guess the British feel insecure about themselves or something.

Yes, Russia has numerous problems, most important being the corrupt bureaucracy and judicial system, dropping population and energy dependent economy, but this kind of article comes of as a rant by some russophobe.

lithy44, I highly suggest you re-read my post rather than posting an equally childish and poorly read conclusion as The Economist has, as I clearly said:

"While Russia is not certainly in a good position or a good place to be right now, or that Putin a good fellow and what not,"

"Russia does have its issues, but The Economist should show some decorum and manners in critiquing and analyzing them."

So read it clear again if you can. Russia does has its issues and I am no way being an apologist for the Putin regime, but anti-Russian garbage which is what this article is. I don't see intelligent analysis in this article (and some of these comments for that matter), but mostly negative adjectives and verbs pieced together in sentences like some bad rant or a comment posted in response to an article. If I were Russian, i'd be thoroughly insulted by this article.

The Economist lately seems to be turning into The Sun or The Daily Mail: Pro-England (and just south-east England, not the rest of the UK) sensationalist, nationalist tabloid trash. No decorum, or manners, or solutions to Russia's problems, or inviting debate or discussion into the issue. Just trying to attract the under-30 low brain-celled crowd in order to sell newspapers by what it seems, re-igniting the Cold War to do just that, when it seems that Obama or even Putin for that matter has no desire to. Shameful.

I agree with most of the comments on this article pointing out that this piece is indeed of low standard. That said, I feel merely criticizing the Economist doesn't solve issues. Could someone state exactly what ought to be said in Russia's defense?

I have been in Russia several times, sometimes for long periods, in the last 16 years. There I've had good and bad experiences all around. But I have to say that beyond any doubt I could perceive the Russians way better off and happier under Mr Putin (hated by the Economist) than they were under Mr Yeltsin, the darling of this magazine.

It is sad that living as I do in the heart of Northern California I am surrounded by people who are hardly aware that Russia and China or indeed any other populations really exist outside this the largest (and failing) state in USA.
I believe that the Headline "Paranoid, mischievous and heading in the wrong direction......" aptly illustrates the posture of the USA as evidenced by its Senate and Congressional representatives as well as that of Russia. Obama has a difficult task ahead stuck as he is in the middle between almost equally miopic and distorted views of the world we all live in. I feel he is the right man for the job and wish him luck- he will need it and all the help we can give him.

I meant to add a few words before sending my prior posting. Face reality folks, Russia and China are still the biggest stumbling blocks to any real solutions for peace and progress in the world. NO, NO, NO and NO seem to drive much of their international policy. A bear is a bear is a bear...and the new emperors of China still see themselves as having the mandate of heaven on their side. A pox on both their POLITICAL houses!

Interesting comments. I note that the ones most vitriolic in content are the ones attacking The Economist for its purported puerile and anti-Russian tone (milonguero139, ja_sh, newmexico1, cynik, GSamsa, tryithard and tjefferson). They do not, however, address the specific comments of the article itself. They also seem to have the highest recommended numbers, reminiscent of the old 99% approval days of the former Soviet Union's "democratic" elections. The apologists for Russia's polity blame everyone except Russia itself for its problems. Pardon the pun, but they seem to see Russia only through very rose-tinted glasses. Just like during the days of the former Communist system, the most vociferous (and totally myopic) screeds usually came from the apologists for Mother Russia, as the rest of the Soviet Union was essentially occupied territory.

I must agree with the posters who have stated their disappointment with this "lead" article on Russia-USA relations. This is truly a shallow, amateur effort. No solutions, just uninformed drivel. Having been a suscriber for over 50 years I must say I find it disappointing and sad that such a reputable magazine has sunk to such depths of poor research and publishing.

For example,their efforts on the fraudulent theory of "anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming" are complicit in the fraud INSTEAD of reporting on it. Quickly getting to the point of cancelling my subscription.

Greetings
Just wanted to say a huge THANK YOU to all of the Economist readers intelligent enough to notice the biased nature of the magazine's articles on Russia ...
Hope the authors read the comments and take into account what their readers have to say ...
Best regards

Incredible reading the comments here - to what is surely (to any reasonable thinking person) a pretty fair assessment of the current state of Russia. I guess that if the mindset revealed by these comments is prevalent in the Russian community then the hope for rapprochement must be pretty slim indeed.

This article marks a new low for The Economist. It is the most wilfully biased one I have ever seen in your pages - incompetent and full distortions, sinking by far below even this magazine's rapidly diminishing standards. I thought you gentlemen hated China most, but your hatred of Russia is unbelievable. Life through tinted glasses... You are the paranoid ones, not Russia. Shame on you!!!

Why not help Russia develop its trade from its Pacific Coast? Obama could offer an open hand to Russia and help the United States develop direct trade with Russia across the Pacific. Comparative advantage is Ricardo's lesson. Let's use it to help each other! This would mean more to each nation than further build down of weapons.